KR102647446B1 - SW quality verification system and method of weapon system under development stage - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a SW quality verification system and method for a weapon system in the development stage: establishing a software (SW) defect database (DB); Analyzing the SW defect DB, evaluating and selecting SW defects, and creating a SW quality improvement checklist; It provides a SW quality verification method for a weapon system in the development stage, including performing source code structure analysis on SW defects derived from a SW quality improvement checklist.

Description

SW quality verification system and method of weapon system under development stage {SW quality verification system and method of weapon system under development stage}

The present invention relates to a software (SW) quality verification system and method for a weapon system in the development stage.

Currently, technological changes to correct SW defects in the operational phase of weapon systems are increasing, increasing the workload and costs of the DAPA, the military, and development companies. Here, technological change refers to changing the shape of items such as SW and hardware (HW) or weapon systems and modifying the relevant technical data bundle.

Defects occurring in a specific weapon system SW are occurring repeatedly in similar weapon system SW. Additionally, regardless of the weapon system, specific SW defects are occurring overall in the weapon system. In addition, SW defects with high risk, such as impact and impact, occur intermittently. In addition, there is a large deviation in SW quality management depending on the individual capabilities or coincidence of the personnel who manage the quality of weapon system SW.

The purpose of the present invention is to provide a SW quality verification method for a development-stage weapon system that can prevent SW defects expected to occur during the operation stage of the weapon system by advancing SW quality assurance activities, and a computer program and recording medium required to perform this. It is provided.

In order to achieve the above-described object, the present invention includes: building a SW defect database (DB); Analyzing the SW defect DB, evaluating and selecting SW defects, and creating a SW quality improvement checklist; It provides a SW quality verification method for a weapon system in the development stage, including performing source code structure analysis on SW defects derived from a SW quality improvement checklist.

In the present invention, the SW defect DB includes defect case identifier, proposal application number, weapon system name, weapon system classification, system information, defect occurrence status and current status, technical cause of defect occurrence, improvement details, inspection details for defect prevention, defect Attributes may include one or more items selected from the following: inflow point, defect classification, defect keyword, risk, development organization, and technology change application date.

In the present invention, analysis of SW defect DB may include weapon system similarity analysis, system similarity analysis, versatility analysis, and risk analysis.

In the present invention, in the weapon system similarity analysis, the weapon systems under development are classified into major, medium, and minor categories, and the classified values are used to search for similar weapon systems in the SW defect DB to determine consistency for each defect.

In the present invention, a differential defect score can be assigned to each SW defect by checking the number of matches in the classification and the consistency of the development organization.

In the present invention, in system similarity analysis, it is possible to compare whether the central processing unit (CPU), operating system (OS), and development language corresponding to system information among the properties of the SW defect DB are identical to the weapon system currently under development.

In the present invention, defect scores can be assigned differentially depending on the number of matches between CPU, OS, and development language.

In the present invention, in the universality analysis, one or more detailed classifications selected from input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, interlocking, and user corresponding to the defect classification among the properties of the SW defect DB are analyzed, and each detailed classification is analyzed. In the classification, you can describe the defect using keywords, rank them according to the keywords, and determine recency by searching the date of application for technology change.

In the present invention, defect scores can be differentially assigned according to defect classification and ranking according to keywords, and defect scores can be differentially assigned according to recency.

In the present invention, in risk analysis, the government's level of quality management (LQM) is referred to, and the level of system interconnection is also considered to search for defects and determine risk.

In the present invention, defect scores can be differentially assigned depending on the number of LQM stages and system interconnection levels.

In the case of defects without LQM in the present invention, defect points can be differentially assigned depending on the project cost and the number of system interconnection levels.

In the present invention, SW defect cases with high defect scores are selected by evaluating similarity, versatility, and risk. The standard score and evaluation score used during selection are determined by the quality assurance manager, and the prepared SW quality improvement checklist is used for quality assurance. It can be reorganized again depending on the period of activity.

In the present invention, in the source code structure analysis, the proposal application number of the SW defect DB is used to check files before and after the change of the source code, and to compare and review the source code in which the defect occurred and the source code of the weapon system currently under development. .

In the present invention, source code structure analysis is a method of comparing whether the implementation pattern of the existing source code with SW defects is similar to the implementation pattern of the currently implemented source code, and the data processing method and logic implementation pattern are similar to those where the SW defect occurred. This may include comparing patterns for similarity.

Additionally, the present invention provides a computer program programmed to perform the above-described method and stored in a computer-readable recording medium.

Additionally, the present invention provides a computer-readable recording medium that stores a computer program programmed to perform the above-described method.

According to the present invention, the possibility of SW defects occurring can be systematically reduced according to similarity, versatility, and risk.

In addition, by reducing the number of technical changes to correct SW defects in the operation stage of the weapon system, the workload and costs of related organizations such as the Defense Agency for Defense, Defense Forces, and development companies can be reduced.

In addition, it is possible to improve the reliability, availability, and usability of the weapon system by preventing SW defects that occur repeatedly during the weapon system operation stage.

In addition, by managing the weapon system SW quality systematically, systematically, and continuously, the overall SW quality can be improved and deviations in SW quality management due to personal capabilities or coincidence of management personnel can be reduced.

Figure 1 shows the weapon system SW development stages and the SW quality assurance activities of the SW technology support agency.
Figure 2 shows a SW quality verification system for a weapon system in the development stage according to the present invention.
Figure 3 shows a method of deriving a SW quality improvement checklist according to the present invention.
Figure 4 shows an example of creating a SW quality improvement checklist according to the present invention.
Figure 5 shows the level of quality management (LQM) evaluation criteria according to the present invention.

Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

In the case of SW technical support organizations (Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, Agency for Defense Development, Agency for Defense Development, Defense Rapid Acquisition Technology Institute, etc.) that manage the SW quality of weapon systems in the current development stage or companies performing supervision work, SW quality assurance activities as shown in Figure 1 are carried out. It performs quality assurance activities that manage the development process or reviews the output of each development stage.

Referring to Figure 1, SW quality assurance activities include SW requirements analysis, SW structural design, SW detailed design, SW implementation, SW integration and testing, system integration and testing, test evaluation and standardization and delivery, and weapon system operation stages. Can proceed in sequence; As each step progresses, it may include a system function review meeting, requirements review meeting, basic design review meeting, detailed design review meeting, test preparation review meeting, standardization, and configuration management.

The present invention relates to a SW quality verification system and method for a weapon system in the development stage. The Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (hereinafter referred to as the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality), the applicant of the present invention, has advanced SW quality assurance activities as shown in Figure 2 to ensure that the SW quality assurance activities are carried out at the operation stage of the weapon system. We want to prevent SW defects that are expected to occur in advance.

Referring to Figure 2, in the present invention, a SW defect DB can be built by analyzing technology change cases through configuration management and collecting user complaints, functional defects, and non-functional defects; Afterwards, a SW quality improvement checklist can be created through similarity, versatility, and risk analysis; Afterwards, the inspection items can be reorganized according to the development stage and business characteristics and used for requirements review meeting, basic design review meeting, detailed design review meeting, test preparation review meeting, and standardization; In addition, through source code structure analysis, SW defects in the source code can be reviewed in detailed design review meetings, test preparation review meetings, standardization, and configuration management.

As can be seen in FIG. 2, the SW quality verification system and method according to the present invention can basically use a SW defect DB, a SW quality improvement checklist, and a method of source code structure analysis.

Specifically, the SW quality verification method of a weapon system in the development stage according to the present invention includes: building a SW defect DB; Analyzing the SW defect DB, evaluating and selecting SW defects, and creating a SW quality improvement checklist; And it may include performing source code structure analysis on SW defects derived from the SW quality improvement checklist.

SW defect DB includes, for example, defect case identifier, proposal application number, weapon system name, weapon system classification, system information, defect occurrence status and current status, technical cause of defect occurrence, improvement details, and inspection details to prevent defects. , items such as defect introduction point, defect classification, defect keyword, risk, development organization, and technology change application date can be included as attributes.

In relation to the creation of a SW quality improvement checklist, the SW defect DB can be analyzed to prioritize and select items that are similar to the weapon system currently under development or that require inspection. At this time, the analysis of the SW defect DB is a weapon system similarity analysis. , may include system similarity analysis, versatility analysis, and risk analysis. And after evaluating defects and assigning scores through this analysis, SW defects exceeding a certain score can be selected to create a SW quality improvement checklist.

First, in the weapon system similarity analysis, the weapon systems under development are classified into major, medium, and minor categories, and using the classified values, similar weapon systems can be searched in the SW defect DB to determine consistency for each defect, and to classify them. By checking the number of matches in the classification and the consistency of the development organization, a differential defect score can be assigned to each SW defect.

Second, in system similarity analysis, it is possible to compare whether the CPU, OS, and development language corresponding to system information among the properties of the SW defect DB are the same as the weapon system currently under development, and the defect score is calculated according to the number of matches between the CPU, OS, and development language. can be given differentially.

Third, in the generality analysis, the detailed classifications (input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, interlocking, and/or user) corresponding to the defect classification among the properties of the SW defect DB are analyzed, and each detailed classification is analyzed. You can describe the defect using keywords, rank them according to the keywords, and determine the latestness by searching the date of application for technical change; Differential defect scores can be assigned according to defect classification and keyword ranking, and different defect scores can be assigned according to recency.

Fourth, in risk analysis, the risk can be determined by searching for defects by referring to the government's LQM and considering the level of system interconnection. Defect scores are assigned differentially according to the stage of LQM and the number of system interconnection levels, or the LQM is In the case of defects that do not exist, defect points can be assigned differently depending on the project cost and the number of system interconnection levels.

As described above, SW defect cases with high defect scores are selected by evaluating similarity, versatility, and risk. The standard score and evaluation score used during selection are determined by the quality assurance manager, and the prepared SW quality improvement checklist is used to determine the quality. It may be reorganized again depending on the period of warranty activities.

In source code structure analysis, the proposal application number in the SW defect DB can be used to check files before and after changes to the source code, and compare and review the source code where the defect occurred and the source code of the weapon system currently under development. Source code structure analysis is a method of comparing whether the implementation pattern of the source code with existing SW defects is similar to the implementation pattern of the currently implemented source code, and whether the data processing method and logic implementation pattern are similar to the pattern in which the SW defect occurred. This may include comparing

Additionally, the present invention provides a computer program programmed to perform the above-described method and stored in a computer-readable recording medium.

Additionally, the present invention provides a computer-readable recording medium that stores a computer program programmed to perform the above-described method.

Computer-readable recording media may include conventional storage devices such as FDD, HDD, SDD, magnetic tape, CD, DVD, USB memory, memory card, etc.; Additionally, online downloads may include websites or servers (or their storage devices).

Additionally, in order to implement the present invention, at least one computer (or laptop, smartphone, etc.), server, network, etc. can be used. Computers include various hardware such as storage devices (RAM, HDD, SDD, etc.), processors (CPU), communication devices (LAN, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.), and input/output devices (keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.); and various software such as OS, DB, and computer program according to the present invention.

Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in more detail at each step.

go. SW defect database (hereinafter referred to as SW defect DB)

At Gapumwon, we can identify cases where weapon system SW is changed due to SW defects through configuration management work. By examining data on each case, you can manage SW defect cases using the following items as attributes.

(1) Defect case identifier

Role in distinguishing each SW defect case

(2) Proposal application number

This is a technical change identifier managed by KDSIS (Korea Defense Standard Information System), and multiple change cases can be included within one application number.

(3) Weapon system name

(4) Weapon system classification

National Defense Power Generation Work Order, '22.12.30. Classified into major, medium, and minor categories according to the standards in Annex Table 4 (see Tables 1-10).

(5) System information

Investigate the central processing unit (CPU), operating system (OS), and development language of the controller where a defect was found

(6) Defect occurrence status/current status

The occurrence situation and occurrence conditions of SW defects described from the perspective of the weapon system user or developer

(7) Technical causes of defects

Technical causes of SW defects identified from the perspective of weapon system development companies

(8) Improvements

SW contents changed to correct SW defects

(9) Inspection details to prevent defects

Detailed records of activities to be performed to prevent defects

(10) Point of defect introduction

Requirements analysis stage, design stage, implementation stage, test evaluation stage, standardization stage, operation and maintenance stage

(11) Defect classification

Classifies SW defects mainly in terms of source code implementation, such as input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, linkage, user, HW, and standardization.

(12) Defect keyword

It serves to further elaborate the classification of defects and expresses the type of defect by simplifying it into a one-word noun. See Figure 4 for keyword examples.

(13) Risk

Investigate the level of quality management (LQM), level of system interconnection, and development project cost.

(14) Development agencies

Weapon system research and development institutions such as the Agency for Defense Development, Hanwha, and LIG Nex1

(15) Date of application for technical change

Date of application for technical change to correct SW defect

Table 1 is a detailed classification of command, control and communications weapon systems. However, in Table 1, the joint command and control system is limited to the command and control system led by the Korean military, and commercial information and communication equipment, which is a component of the weapon system, can be classified as a weapon system.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment command
control
system joint command
control system Joint Command and Control System (AKJCCS), Joint Military Information Distribution System (MIMS-C), etc. joint command
control system Joint Command and Control System (KJCCS), Military Information Integrated Processing System (MIMS), Theater Joint Fire Operations System (JFOS-K), etc. ground command
control system Ground tactical C4I system (ATCIS), battalion-level combat command system (B2CS), etc. maritime command
control system Naval Tactical C4I System (KNCCS), Naval Tactical Data Processing System (KNTDS), etc. air command
control system Air Force Tactical C4I System (AFCCS), Air Force Central Air Defense Control System (MCRC), etc. communication
system tactical communication system Tactical Communication System (SPIDER), Tactical Information and Communication System (TICN), etc. tactical data
link system Joint Tactical Data Link System (JTDLS), Ground Tactical Data Link (KVMF) satellite communication system Military Satellite Communication System (ANASIS), Maritime Operational Satellite Communication System (MOSCOS), Satellite All-Army Air Defense Warning System (SAWS), etc. public relay system Aerial relay UAV, etc. communication
equipment wired equipment Tactical electronic switchboard (TTC-95K, SB-30K, etc.), tactical electronic telephone, field telephone, etc. wireless equipment Portable/vehicular FM radio (PRC-999K), portable/vehicular AM radio, U/VHF public notice communication equipment, small unit radio (combatant radio, special operation radio, etc.), radio transmission equipment (multi-channel radio transmission equipment, etc.), tactical Multi-band multi-function radio (TMMR), etc. else
communication equipment Alarm receiver (GRR-5K), wireless transceiver, high-speed specialized processor, information/security equipment, etc.

Table 2 is a detailed classification of surveillance and reconnaissance weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment electronic warfare
equipment electronic support equipment Base ES equipment, ground/sea/air signal information collection equipment, eastern/western region ES equipment, radar warning receiver, etc. electronic attack equipment Eastern/western region EA equipment, ES/EA equipment for ships, electronic warfare spreader, electronic jamming equipment, etc. electronic protective equipment Guided missile approach warning device, etc. radar
equipment surveillance radar GPS-100, SPS-95, GPS-98K, MR-1600, ground surveillance equipment (RASIT), anti-ship radar, etc. air traffic control
radar MPN-14, GPN-22, TPN-24, etc. air defense control
radar FPS-303K, TPS-77, FPS-117, etc. former
optics
equipment electro-optical equipment Electro-optical imaging equipment (LOROP), tactical reconnaissance information collection equipment (TAC-EO), KA-56, KS-92A, reconnaissance satellites (EO/IR), etc. optical amplification
night vision equipment PVS-98K, AVS-01K, CK-037, etc. thermal imaging equipment TAS-502, TAS-970K, PAS-01K, forward observation infrared equipment, etc. laser equipment Night target designator, GAS-1K, etc. underwater
watch
equipment sonar Hull-mounted sonar (HMS), towed sonar (TASS), underwater search sonar, etc. torpedo sound
counter system SLQ-260K, SLQ-25K, etc. underwater surveillance system Port surveillance system, etc. else
sonar Magnetic detector (MAD), etc. weather
watch
equipment weather satellite
surveillance equipment Meteorological satellite reception system (METSAT-GS09), etc. weather watch
radar Weather radar (RDR-IF, WXR-350A, TWR-850, WRK-100, etc.), mobile weather radar, etc. weather observation equipment Automatic aviation weather observation equipment, ceiling measurement equipment, upper atmosphere analysis equipment, upper wind observation equipment, automatic weather observation equipment, space weather forecast/warning system, etc. information
analyze
system video analysis system Multi-source image fusion system (MIFS), etc. target processing system Information fusion target processing system etc Signal analysis system, military intelligence big data, etc. else
Surveillance/Reconnaissance
equipment border system GOP scientific surveillance system, coastal complex surveillance system, important facility surveillance system, etc. etc OX-60, AN/UPX-23, Naval Acoustic Information Management System (NAIMS), Military Geographic Information System (MGIS), 26-inch xenon searchlight, etc.

Table 3 is a detailed classification of mobile weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment Train For combat M48A3K, M48A5/5K. K-1, K1A1, T-80U, K-2 tanks, etc. For combat support K1 rescue tank, M88A1 rescue tank, etc. panzer For combat K200(A1), BMP-Ⅲ, LVTP7A1, KAAVP7A1, wheeled armored personnel carrier, K281(A1), K242(A1), K21 infantry fighting vehicle, etc. For command and control K277(A1), LVTC7A1, KAAVC7A1, etc. For combat support *For fire command: K77 fire command vehicle, etc.
*For chemical, biological and radiological reconnaissance: K216, etc.
*For rescue: K288, KAAVR7A1, etc.
*For ammunition transport: K10 ammunition transport vehicle, K56 ammunition transport vehicle, etc. battle
vehicle For combat Medium tactical vehicle, TOW/106 mm/Xenon-equipped vehicle, K532 multi-purpose tactical vehicle, etc. For conducting Wheeled command post vehicle, 5-ton expandable boxed vehicle, etc. For combat support 5-ton/10-ton rescue vehicle, 1½-ton maintenance??, 2½-ton maintenance??, tactical vehicle for communication relay (K534), 1¼-ton communication temporary vehicle, 1½-ton code vehicle, 2½-ton code vehicle, etc. maneuver and
Daegi-dong
support equipment combat engineer equipment Armored combat dozer (M9ACE), multi-purpose excavator, obstacle clearing tank, etc. overcoming the gap and
doha equipment Ribbon pontoon bridge (RBS), long/simple assembly bridge, tank bridge (AVLB), tactical bridge-Ⅱ, self-propelled crossing equipment, etc. mine field
overcome equipment Mine field clearing equipment (MICLIC), portable mine detector (PRS-17K), mine detector-Ⅱ, mine removal equipment (Mine Breaker), etc. standby equipment Korean type mine spreader (KM138), remotely operated control bomb, explosive device set, etc. maneuver navigation equipment Portable GPS (military use), etc. else
support equipment Aircraft tow truck, tanker (2½ tons or more), water purification equipment (KRO1500GPH), etc. ground
unmanned system For combat Unmanned light combat vehicles, etc. For combat support Explosives detection/removal robots, etc. individual
combat system - -

Table 4 is a detailed classification of ship weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment Suspicious ship battleship Destroyers, frigates, patrol ships, guided missile ships, high-speed boats, etc. mine battleship Mine laying ships, minesweepers, mine searchers, etc. landing ship Large transport ships, landing ships, high-speed landing craft, etc. Supported Logistics support ship, submarine rescue ship, surface rescue ship, intelligence ship, etc. submarine (boat) submarine Submarines, small submarines, etc. battle
work
Jiwonjeong patrol boat Port patrol boat, Doha patrol boat, etc. transport boat Port transport boats, logistics support boats, etc. supply boat Cheongsujeong, Yujojeong, etc. work schedule Port support boats, towing boats, crane boats, cleaning boats, dredging boats, earthen boats, work boats, etc. Jiwonjeong High-speed support boat, guard post support boat, mooring support boat, waste oil support boat, landing pontoon bridge, etc. landing support craft Landing pontoon bridge, pontoon towing boat, etc. special tablet Diving support boat, rescue support boat, semi-submersible aircraft carrier, multi-purpose training support boat, etc. sea
battle
support
equipment ship combat system Submarine combat system, surface ship combat system, etc. trap shooting
control equipment WSA-423, WCS-86, WCS-10, etc. trap pia
identification equipment UPX-27, TPX-54, APX-72, etc. ship navigation equipment MX-1105GPS, WRN-7GPS, SRN-15A, etc. infiltration equipment Swimmer Transfer Vessel (SDV), etc. minesweeping equipment Complex sensitive mine minesweepers, etc. rescue and
life saving equipment Deep sea rescue submersible (DSRV), etc. else
support equipment Tactical Data Processing System (TDS) trap
soldier
system water unmanned system Unmanned watercraft for reconnaissance, unmanned watercraft exclusively for mines, unmanned watercraft for combat, etc. underwater unmanned system Underwater autonomous mine detection vehicle, reconnaissance unmanned submersible, combat unmanned submersible, etc.

Table 5 is a detailed classification of aviation weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment fixed wing
aircraft combat mission plane F-4, F-5, (K)F-16, F-15K, FA-50, etc. aerial mobility C-130, CN-235, HS-748 B-737, etc. supervisory controller KA-1, E-737, RF-16, RC-800, etc. trainer KT-1, KT-100, T-50, TA-50, etc. maritime patrol aircraft P-3C/CK, etc. else
fixed wing aircraft T-11, CARVAN-Ⅱ, etc. rotary wing
aircraft mobile helicopter UH-1H, UH-60, CH-47D, etc. attack helicopter AH-1S, 500MD(TOW), LYNX, AH-64E, etc. reconnaissance helicopter 500MD (basic), BO-105, etc. search and rescue helicopter AS-332, HH-32, HH-47, HH-60, KUH-1M, etc. command helicopter VH-60, VH-92, etc. training helicopter BELL-412, etc. soldier
aircraft - Unmanned fighter jets, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, anti-aircraft suppression drones, etc. Airline
battle
support
equipment aircraft shooting
control equipment AN/APG-68, AN/APG-63, IRST, HUD, etc. air tactics
control equipment Maritime patrol aircraft tactical computer (DMS, etc.) precision bombing equipment LANTIRN, Pave Tack / Spike, TIGER Eyes, SNIPER, etc. aviation navigation equipment INS, GPS, TACAN, ILS, RDR ALT', ADF, etc. aircraft pia
identification equipment AN/APX-76, AN/APX-101, AN/APX-109, etc. else
support equipment Aircraft starting equipment, aircraft flotation towing equipment, bomb transport equipment, bomb loading and unloading equipment, etc.

Table 6 is a detailed classification of fire weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment fire extinguisher personal firearms 38/45 caliber pistols, M16A1, K-1/K-2 rifles, underwater pistols, M203/K-201 grenade launchers, etc. machine gun K-3/K-4/M60/K-6 machine guns, etc. anti-tank
firearms anti-tank rocket M72LAW, PZF-3, etc. anti-tank
guided weapon METIS-M, TOW, bow bow, etc. recoilless rifle 90 mm/106 mm recoilless rifle, etc. artillery mine thrower 60 mm/81 mm/120 mm/4.2" mortar, etc. field artillery 105 mm (M101 howitzer, K105A1 self-propelled howitzer), 155 mm (M114A1 howitzer, KH-179 howitzer), K55 (A1) self-propelled howitzer, K9 (A1) self-propelled howitzer, etc. Multiple launchers/rockets 230 mm multiple rounds, MLRS, 130 mm multiple rounds, etc. naval gun 20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 76 mm, 127 mm, etc. fire power
support
equipment Target Detection/Firepower
control radar AN/TPQ-36, AN/TPQ-37, ARTHUR-K(1K), etc. For tanks and artillery
fire control equipment Tank commander thermal sight, tank gunner's sight, BTCS (A1), etc. else
fire support equipment Geodetic dimension calculator, light wave distance meter, automatic geodetic equipment, etc. ammunition ground bullet Machine gun rounds, mortar rounds, artillery rounds, tank shells, rocket rounds, mines, explosives, etc. trap bomb 20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 76 mm, 127 mm, mines, depth charges, etc. aviation bomb Regular bombs, guided bombs, cluster bombs, flares, etc. special ammunition Electromagnetic pulse bombs, electrostatic bombs, etc. guided missile
active attractant Anti-guided missile decoy (DECOY), CHAFF, R-BOC, etc. Judo
weapon ground launch
guided weapon Surface-to-ground guided weapons (Hyunmoo, ATACMS), surface-to-surface guided missiles (HARPOON), tactical surface-to-ground guided weapons (KTSSM), etc. sea launch
guided weapon Surface-to-surface/ship-to-ship/ship-to-air guided missiles, anti-submarine guided missiles, etc. air shot
guided weapon Air-to-ground/air-to-ship/air-to-air guided missiles, etc. underwater guided weapon Light torpedoes, heavy torpedoes, long-range anti-submarine torpedoes, etc. special
weapon laser weapon High-energy laser weapons, high-power microwave weapons, ultra-low frequency acoustic weapons, etc.

Table 7 is a detailed classification of protective weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment air defense flak 20 mm anti-aircraft guns, 30 mm anti-aircraft guns, 35 mm anti-aircraft guns, etc. anti-aircraft guided weapon Mistral, Shingung, Cheonma, Hawk, etc. air defense radar TPS-830K, DA-05, local air defense radar, etc. air defense control equipment TSQ-73, air defense C2A, etc. Chemical and biological room Chemical, biological and radiological protection Gas masks, protective clothing, canisters, etc. Chemical and biological room
Recon/Admiral Chemical, biological and radiological reconnaissance vehicles, automatic chemical alarms, radioactivity measuring instruments, new decontamination vehicles, small decontamination machines, dry decontamination machines, etc. Chemical and biological room
Prevention/Treatment Personal decontamination kit, nerve agent prevention patch, anthrax detox kit, radioactivity detox kit, nerve antidote kit, etc. smoke screen Smoke generator, infrared shielding combined smoke equipment, etc. Disposal of chemical and biological weapons Chemical and biological weapons analysis/verification equipment, chemical and biological weapons dismantling equipment, chemical and biological weapons demilitarization equipment, etc. EMP
protection - -

Table 8 is a detailed classification of cyber weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment Cyber
Operations
system defensive cyber
operational system Cyber battlefield management system, etc. offensive cyber
operational system Cyber neutralization system, etc. cyber training/
analysis system Cyber training system, cyber combat experiment analysis system

Table 9 is a detailed classification of space weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment universe
watch space object
surveillance system Electro-optical satellite surveillance system, radar space surveillance system, high-power laser satellite tracking system, etc. space weather
surveillance system Space weather forecast/warning system, etc. universe
information
support satellite early warning
and reconnaissance system Early warning satellite, military reconnaissance satellite, micro satellite system, etc. satellite communication system Low-orbit small communication satellite constellation, etc. satellite navigation system Military KPS, etc. universe
control - space asset defense system, etc. universe
power
projection air launch system aerial projectiles, etc. ground launch system ground projectiles, etc. maritime launch system maritime projectiles, etc.

Table 10 is a detailed classification of other weapon systems.

Middle classification Subcategories Target Equipment national defense
M&S
system woah
game
Model practice/
For training Taegeuk JOS simulation model, anti-power warfare simulation model, Changjo 21 model, Changgong model, Cheonjabong model, Cheonghae model, Naval Special Warfare (UDT/SEAL) simulation training system, etc. For analysis Joint operation analysis model, C4ISR analysis model, air armament effect calculation model, Navy engagement level analysis model, Marine Corps landing operation analysis model, chemical, biological and radiological risk prediction analysis system, etc. For acquisition Air-to-air engagement effectiveness analysis model, submarine operation effectiveness analysis model, weapon system repair level analysis model, Shingung 6-degree-of-freedom simulation, etc. tactical training
mock equipment K-series tank small unit tactical simulation training equipment, P-3 and LYNX simulation training equipment, fighter/transport/trainer simulation training equipment, etc.

me. SW quality improvement checklist

By analyzing the SW defect DB, you can prioritize and select items that are similar to the weapon system currently under development or that require inspection. At this time, the similarity between the weapon system currently being developed and the weapon system in which the SW defect occurred previously, the similarity with the system in which the SW defect occurred, the SW defect that appears universally, and the SW defect with a high risk can be considered. After evaluating defects and assigning scores from these four perspectives, you can select SW defects with a certain score or higher to form a SW quality improvement checklist.

The method of constructing the SW quality improvement checklist is shown in Figure 3. Specifically, for analysis of weapons systems projects under development; Through SW defect search of similar weapon systems, systematic weapon system SW defect search, general weapon system SW defect search, and risk-considered SW defect search; By performing weapon system similarity assessment, system similarity assessment, versatility assessment, and risk assessment; After deriving similar SW defects, deriving SW defects from a system perspective, deriving general-purpose SW defects, and deriving high-risk SW defects; By selecting SW defect items with a defect score greater than the standard score; Create a SW quality improvement checklist; Reorganized according to the weapon system development stage; It can be used in SW quality assurance activities.

Figure 4 is an example of a SW quality improvement checklist. The SW quality improvement checklist may consist of quality information and inspection items. Quality information can consist of business, quality management, improvement activities, etc. A project may consist of weapon system name, target CSCI, system classification, development organization, etc. Quality management can be composed of levels, management steps, detailed steps, etc. Improvement activities can be organized by location, period, etc. Inspection items may include input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, interlocking, user, HW, standardization, etc. in numerical order. Additionally, each item may contain a number or multiple keywords.

The SW quality improvement checklist can basically select SW defect cases by selecting the defect item properties of the SW defect DB. At this time, (1) defect case identifier and (9) inspection details for defect prevention in the SW defect DB can be necessarily selected, and other attributes can be selectively extracted.

If the inspection details extracted from the SW quality improvement checklist overlap, only one defect case can be selected, and this process can be operated automatically in the system that extracts the SW defect DB.

(1) Weapon system similarity analysis

1) Defect search conditions

Among the properties of the SW defect DB, (4) in relation to weapon system classification, SW defects can be identified in advance based on weapon system similarity. First of all, weapon systems currently under development can be classified into major, medium, and minor categories according to Tables 1 to 10. Using the classified values, you can search the SW defect DB for weapon systems similar to major, medium, and minor categories and determine the consistency of each defect.

2) Criteria for assigning defect scores

By checking the number of matches in the classification and the consistency of the development organization, it is possible to assign differential defect scores to each SW defect as shown in the table below. As can be seen in the table, the greater the number of matching classifications, the higher the defect score can be.

Main Category
1 match Large, medium category
2 matches Large, medium, small categories
3 matches weapon system
similarity development agency
Same 3 points 5 points 9 points development agency
Inconsistency 1 point 3 points 5 points

(2) System similarity analysis

1) Defect search conditions

Among the properties of the SW defect DB, (5) regarding system information, it is possible to compare whether the CPU, OS, development language, and weapon system currently under development are identical.

2) Criteria for assigning defect points

As shown in the table below, defect scores can be assigned differently depending on the number of matches between CPU, OS, and development language. As can be seen in the table, the greater the number of matches, the higher the defect score can be.

CPU, OS, development language
matches 1 of CPU, OS, development language
2 of them match CPU, OS, development language
3 of them match system
similarity 1 point 2 points 3 points

Meanwhile, there may be cases where a weapon system is composed of multiple Computer Software Component Items (CSCI), and the system is classified into several categories. At this time, when evaluating system similarity, the defect score can be evaluated by dividing each CPU, OS, and development language into CSCI units.

(3) Versatility analysis

1) Defect search conditions

Among the properties of the SW defect DB, generalability analysis can be performed in relation to defect classification (11). Versatility analysis refers to the frequency of occurrence and recency of SW defects from the source code and user perspective. It may be a central analysis. First, in the SW defect DB (11), nine attributes such as input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, interconnection, and user can be analyzed among defect classifications. Each classification can describe the corresponding defect with one word in the detailed defect classification. For example, a SW defect classified as “input” may have keywords such as “user,” “electrical signal,” and “touch,” as shown in FIG. 4 . Each defect category can be ranked according to keywords, and a defect score can be assigned by searching up to 3 ranks. Additionally, when considering recency, recency can be determined by searching the date the technology change was applied for.

2) Criteria for assigning defect scores

In the case where the most classified keyword rankings among the defect types classified by “input” are “electrical signal”, “user”, and “touch”, defect scores can be assigned differentially from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in that order. The higher the rank, the higher the score. Additionally, it is possible to assign additional defect scores by evaluating whether each defect occurred recently. As shown in the table below, 2 points can be given for less than 5 years, 1 point for less than 10 years, and 0 points for more than 10 years. In other words, the more recently the defect occurred, the higher the defect score may be.

versatility Defect classification and keywords
Ranking evaluation score according to 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 3 points 2 points 1 point Recency within 5 years within 10 years 10 years later 2 points 1 point 0 points

(4) Risk analysis

1) Defect search conditions

Risk analysis can be performed in relation to (13) risk among the properties of the SW defect DB. LQM stands for Level of Quality Management and can indicate the quality management level of the project being developed. It can indicate the government's quality management level according to the results of the business and technical risk assessment at the time of starting the development of the weapon system, and the detailed LQM evaluation criteria are shown in Figure 5.

Referring to Figure 5, in the LQM evaluation standard table, the vertical columns divide technology risks into low, medium, and high; In the horizontal row, development costs are divided into less than 85 billion won, less than 85 billion to less than 300 billion won, and more than 300 billion won; As the technological risk increases and the development cost increases, it can be granted in the order of LQMⅠ, LQMⅡ, and LQMⅢ. The larger the research and development project cost, the higher the risk. The technical risk level is determined by the results of technological maturity (TRL) assessment based on core technology elements (CTE) (30%), specification of operational requirements (30%), type of research and development management (10%), and history of similar weapon systems (30%). By reflecting this, the risk can be calculated comprehensively.

When evaluating the risk of each defect, the level of LQM can be referred to. For example, if a SW defect occurs despite the high level of quality control during the LQMⅢ project, the defect can be considered a high-risk defect. In addition, defects can be searched by considering the level of system interconnection.

2) Criteria for assigning defect scores

As shown in the table below, defect scores can be assigned differently depending on the number of LQM stages and system interconnection levels. If LQM occurs in a high-level project and the level of system interconnection is high, a high defect score may be assigned.

risk LQMⅠ LQMⅡ LQMⅢ system
peristalsis
level 0 1 point 1 point 2 points One 1 point 2 points 3 points 2 or more 2 points 3 points 3 points

In the case of defects without LQM, defects can be differentially evaluated based on project cost as follows. As can be seen in the table, the higher the development cost and the higher the level of system integration, the higher the defect score.

risk - development cost
Less than 85 billion development cost
85-300 billion
under development cost
Over 300 billion system
peristalsis
level 0 1 point 1 point 2 points One 1 point 2 points 3 points 2 or more 2 points 3 points 3 points

(5) Linkage of SW quality assurance activities with SW quality improvement checklist

As described above, SW defect cases with high defect scores can be selected by evaluating similarity, versatility, and risk. A high defect score can be prioritized to be considered first when assessing the likelihood of a defect occurring. At this time, the standard score used to select SW defect cases can be determined by the quality assurance manager. For example, defects with a total defect score of similarity, versatility, and risk above above 5 points (can be set arbitrarily) or higher can be collectively derived.

SW defects derived through the above process can form a SW quality improvement checklist. The SW quality improvement checklist created at this time can be reorganized according to the period of quality assurance activities. For example, if the SW quality assurance activity for a weapon system in the development stage is at the requirements review meeting, a SW quality improvement checklist for SW defect prevention activities can be formed at the requirements review meeting. In this way, SW defect prevention activities can be performed by selecting defects that may occur in the weapon system and utilizing them at an appropriate time.

Additionally, the evaluation score expressed in the SW defect score award criteria can also be modified by the person in charge, allowing the priority of similarity, versatility, and risk to be adjusted. Additionally, once the classification level of the weapon system under development is determined, a defect score can be automatically determined using the system.

all. Source code structure analysis

For each defect case, related data can be traced through (2) proposal application number. Related organizations related to weapons system acquisition, such as the Agency for Defense Development, Agency for Defense Development, Defense Agency, etc., have access to this information system. Therefore, since the source code of cases where defects have occurred can also be checked, by using the proposal application number (2) in the SW defect DB, files before and after changes to the source code can be checked before performing quality assurance activities. After the detailed design review meeting, the source code of the weapon system under development is created as an output, so it is possible to compare and review the source code where the defect occurred and the source code of the weapon system currently under development.

Source code structure analysis can be a method of comparing whether the implementation pattern of the source code with existing SW defects is similar to the implementation pattern of the currently implemented source code. Among existing SW defects, when looking at SW defects with high impact and impact on the implemented source code, the "else" statement may be omitted from the "if control statement" or incorrect control may be performed in the "else" statement. Source code structure analysis can be an intensive comparison and review of these parts with existing source code. Additionally, source code structure analysis may also include comparing whether the data processing method and logic implementation pattern are similar to the pattern in which the SW defect occurred.

You can review SW defects on the source code by reviewing each defect case derived from the SW quality improvement checklist in the above manner.

la. Role of SW technical support agency representative

(1) Collection of SW defect information such as defect occurrence situation and defect improvement plan

(2) Classification of SW defects according to defect inflow stage

(3) SW defect DB update

(4) Development business analysis and SW quality improvement checklist creation

(5) Verification of existing SW defects depending on the timing of the development project

(6) Carrying out defect prevention activities

(7) SW defect verification through source code analysis

(8) Delivery of verification results to development agencies or related organizations

(9) Confirmation of reflection of returned improvement plan, review of verification results, analysis of effectiveness of SW quality verification system

(10) Review of development stage SW quality verification system improvement

Claims (17)

Hardware, including computers, servers, and networks; In a method of verifying the SW quality of a weapon system in the development stage using software including a program for creating a database and a checklist,
Building a software (SW) defect database (DB);
Analyzing the SW defect DB, evaluating and selecting SW defects, and creating a SW quality improvement checklist; and
It includes the step of performing source code structure analysis on SW defects derived from the SW quality improvement checklist,
The SW defect DB contains defect case identifier, proposal application number, weapon system name, weapon system classification, system information, defect occurrence status and current status, technical cause of defect occurrence, details of improvement, details of inspection to prevent defects, point of defect introduction, Contains as attributes one or more items selected from defect classification, defect keyword, risk, development organization, and technology change application date;
The analysis of the SW defect DB is a SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage, including weapon system similarity analysis, system similarity analysis, versatility analysis, and risk analysis. delete delete According to paragraph 1,
In weapon system similarity analysis, weapon systems under development are classified into major, medium, and minor categories, and similar weapon systems are searched in the SW defect DB using the classified values to determine consistency for each defect. SW quality verification method. According to paragraph 4,
A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that assigns differential defect scores to each SW defect by checking the number of matches in classification and the consistency of the development organization. According to paragraph 1,
In system similarity analysis, the SW quality of a weapon system in the development stage is compared to whether the central processing unit (CPU), operating system (OS), and development language corresponding to system information among the properties of the SW defect DB are identical to the weapon system currently under development. Verification method. According to clause 6,
A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that differentially assigns defect scores depending on the number of matches between CPU, OS, and development language. According to paragraph 1,
In the generality analysis, one or more detailed classifications selected from input, output, communication, data, failure, control, logic, interlocking, and user corresponding to the defect classification among the properties of the SW defect DB are analyzed, and keywords are selected in each detailed classification. A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that describes defects, ranks them according to keywords, and determines the latestness by searching the date of application for technology change. According to clause 8,
A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that assigns differential defect scores according to defect classification and keyword ranking, and gives differential defect scores according to recency. According to paragraph 1,
In risk analysis, a SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that refers to the government's level of quality management (LQM) and considers the level of system interconnection to search for defects and determine risk. According to clause 10,
A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that differentially assigns defect scores depending on the LQM stage and the number of system interconnection levels. According to clause 10,
In the case of defects without LQM, a SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage that differentially assigns defect scores according to project cost and the number of system interconnection levels. According to paragraph 1,
SW defect cases are selected by evaluating similarity, versatility, and risk. The standard score and evaluation score used during selection are determined by the quality assurance manager, and the created SW quality improvement checklist is reorganized according to the quality assurance activity period. SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage. According to paragraph 1,
In the source code structure analysis, the proposal application number of the SW defect DB is used to check files before and after the change of the source code, and compare and review the source code where the defect occurred and the source code of the weapon system currently under development, a weapon system in the development stage. SW quality verification method. According to paragraph 1,
Source code structure analysis is a method of comparing whether the implementation pattern of the source code with existing SW defects is similar to the implementation pattern of the currently implemented source code, and whether the data processing method and logic implementation pattern are similar to the pattern in which the SW defect occurred. A SW quality verification method for weapon systems in the development stage, including comparison. A computer program programmed to perform the method of claim 1 and stored in a computer-readable recording medium. A computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program programmed to perform the method of claim 1.